You have that backwards. The Internet was originally designed for command and control of critical (military) infrastructure.
Actually not. ARPAnet was designed to tie a few dozen facilities doing government research together using a packet switching network and allow them to communicate via a common protocol (TCP/IP). The notion that one would use a publically accessible packet switching network for military command and control would have been instantly rejected back then. (And, one would hope still would be today).
nit-picking I know. But the specified length limit for RS-232 is 50ft=15m. You can usually get away with pushing that a little. But back in the day I really did run into occasional problems with data quality on long cable runs. I wasn't a big fan of RS232 BTW -- too many legal, incompatible, configuration options.
If critical infrastructure fallback systems are economically obsolete, it says a lot about the obsolescence of that economic system.
Don't disagree. But the phrase you're looking for is probably "adequacy of that economic system." The notion that maximizing efficiency/minimizing costs will produce the best of all possible worlds seems a bit suspect.
Of course not. What they want is to quit using an obviously insecure technology designed for entertainment and casual communication for command and control of critical infrastructure. Maybe the internet can actually be secured. But so far, all the signs seem to say that it can not be -- at least not any time soon.
Like the his faithful Indian companion Tonto used to ask the old Lone Ranger. "What now Kimosabe?"
At least, these guys have a plan of sorts. Leave the phone lines in place. The financial community's response to similar problems is to pretend the problems don't exist. Anyone want to bet on THAT ending well?
FWIW, it looks like running lsof -i will tell unix users what ports are open. If port 445 is open, you might want to kill smbd while you sort things out. Purportedly adding "nt pipe support = no" to your smb.conf file and restarting smbd might allow some samba capability while still stopping the threat. See https://www.samba.org/samba/se...
Note: If this advice turns your system into a quivering ball of protoplasm, Don't blame me. I'm only the messenger.
Might be of interest to investigate how a state with only 625,000 inhabitants comes by a data base of 2.6 million pictures.
BTW. Vermont didn't even put pictures on most driver's licenses until about 20 years ago. You had to drive to Montpelier if you wanted a picture license because the Montpelier office had the DMV's only camera.
As Winston Churchill might have said (but didn't). The possibility of a voting machine with a network interface no more entered into my mind than that of a battleship being launched without a bottom.â
Y'know, 15 years or so ago, I had a part time job managing a network of a hundred or so Windows 9 PCs and a handful of WFWG PCs too incapable to even run Win95. Novell Server. It didn't crash.
Sometimes (about every third thunderstorm) we lost the internet for a few hours. Every now and then a PC died. But the network didn't crash.... Until expert help tried to modernize it
Then it crashed.
A lot.
Maybe there is something to be said for simple and reliable.
"AI needs to be trained just like graduating students...."
Yes, but my impression is that (much of?) the "training" already exists in the form of guidelines that doctors are supposed to, and often do, follow? e.g. Age 77, Male, BP=138/80 = OK. But BP 141/80 = needs medication.
"I expect in 10 years, 20 max, it will be illegal in civilized places to diagnose and prescribe treatment without consulting a computer, just like it is now without consulting a medically trained person."
"Windows just crashed again. You'll have to stop that damn bleeding until IT can fix this thing... ???
More like whoever has money that can potentially be liberated for some noble cause like enriching lawyers.
Another factor is that a doctor generally has to screw up substantially to be sued successfully. I suspect the same isn't true of an AI computer program which is likely to be held to a much higher standard. That may cause AI to be relegated to an advisory role. "Alexa, I think this dude has cancer, what do you think?" "I think it's just a hangover. Tell him to take two Asprin, lay of booze for a day and call you tomorrow if he still feels rotten."
Heck, I'm willing to believe that some voting machines are secure. However, my bet would be that secure voting machines are both expensive and not very widely used.
"There are many other reasons for counting votes the "traditional" way, secure machines or not."
There are other alternatives as well. For example the town I live in uses paper ballots, but counts them with OCR -- which allows for a quick total when the polls close, but still allows a recount if a problem in a miscount is suspected.
BTW, about 30 years ago, the town had a substantial number of blank ballots vanish on election day. Everyone is pretty sure they didn't end up in the vote count, but to this day no one knows where they went. if indeed they ever existed. It's remotely possible that the print run was somehow miscounted.
I'll start taking AI seriously if/when I encounter an automated phone answering system that functions half as well as a high-school dropout receptionist nursing a hangover.
Pretty much complete nonsense. They are comparing two different sets of instrumentation that should conceptually show the same quantity, but don't. Then calling the difference "acceleration". That's nuts.
Neither the tidal gauges by themselves nor the satellites by themselves http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ show any significant acceleration although both are a bit noisy. Why are they different? Lots of people would like to know that. FWIW, I think the satellites are somewhat more likely to be right planetwide. But one should probably use nearby tidal gauges for local planning since they reflect local susidence, etc. Satellites are complicated beasts working at (or perhaps beyond) the limits of what is possible. There is potential for some sort of calibration error.
And both the satellites and the tidal gauges show more sea level rise than can be accounted for by known ice melt plus ocean thermal expansion plus aquifer pumping minus impoundments. But no one currently has much faith in that estimate.
Need I point out that building roads and structures right at Highest High Water (A term I just made up) really isn't a very good idea. OK for parking lots and campgrounds perhaps. But for stuff you'll miss if its destroyed, you want highest high water plus highest likely storm surge plus maybe a meter or two.
Actually, it wouldn't do any harm for planners to assume three or more feet of seal level rise in the next century. It'd work better than what they are doing now. But "science" it is not.
They allow you to call 1-666-GOSATAN where you may be able to negotiate a deal for achieving your rather modest desires in exchange for your immortal soul. You'll have to spend 45 minutes fighting with Hell's automated phone answering system but once you get through to a live demon, it shouldn't be hard..
Of course your soul may not be worth all that much. Depends on what you've been doing with your spare time.
A caution. Once you get back beyond the reach of polar ice cores (about 800,000 years), CO2 estimates are based on somewhat dubious proxies. The one case I'm aware of where there are two proxies for the same sediment bed (leaf stomata size and soil calcification) the estimated values differed by a factor of two. Doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the accuracy of past CO2 estimates. But then, I don't have much faith in proxy measurements of anything.
Hansen made the prediction during a radio interview in 1988. There was some ambiguity whether it was a 20 year or 40 year prediction. When asked about that, Hansen said 40 years. Heck, let's give him that. (I reckon he needs about 2-3 meters sea level rise in the next decade for it to come about. But I don't live in NYC and don't know for sure how much freeboard the lowest stretch of 12th Avenue/Westside Highway has.
"There are people in Miami (and other Florida coastal cities), who beg to differ."
They seem to have built parts of Miami Beach below the level reached by the highest high tides. Imprudent of course, But profitable if you can sell the property before the moon and sun next align in an unfortunate configuration. Maybe they should have put a bit more thought into approving building permits.
There are a number of tidal gauges in Florida and several in the Miami area.
Here's what NOAA has to say about Miami Beach
"The mean sea level trend is 2.39 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years. " https://tidesandcurrents.noaa....
Don't take my word for it, nor your local newspaper's and certainly not the Slashdot editor's. I'd encourage you to check both NOAA.gov and psmsl.org for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually not. ARPAnet was designed to tie a few dozen facilities doing government research together using a packet switching network and allow them to communicate via a common protocol (TCP/IP). The notion that one would use a publically accessible packet switching network for military command and control would have been instantly rejected back then. (And, one would hope still would be today).
See http://www.nethistory.info/His...
nit-picking I know. But the specified length limit for RS-232 is 50ft=15m. You can usually get away with pushing that a little. But back in the day I really did run into occasional problems with data quality on long cable runs. I wasn't a big fan of RS232 BTW -- too many legal, incompatible, configuration options.
That's what we're currently trying to do. Doesn't seem to be working all that well though.
Don't disagree. But the phrase you're looking for is probably "adequacy of that economic system." The notion that maximizing efficiency/minimizing costs will produce the best of all possible worlds seems a bit suspect.
Of course not. What they want is to quit using an obviously insecure technology designed for entertainment and casual communication for command and control of critical infrastructure. Maybe the internet can actually be secured. But so far, all the signs seem to say that it can not be -- at least not any time soon.
Like the his faithful Indian companion Tonto used to ask the old Lone Ranger. "What now Kimosabe?"
At least, these guys have a plan of sorts. Leave the phone lines in place. The financial community's response to similar problems is to pretend the problems don't exist. Anyone want to bet on THAT ending well?
FWIW, it looks like running lsof -i will tell unix users what ports are open. If port 445 is open, you might want to kill smbd while you sort things out. Purportedly adding "nt pipe support = no" to your smb.conf file and restarting smbd might allow some samba capability while still stopping the threat. See
https://www.samba.org/samba/se...
Note: If this advice turns your system into a quivering ball of protoplasm, Don't blame me. I'm only the messenger.
Might be of interest to investigate how a state with only 625,000 inhabitants comes by a data base of 2.6 million pictures.
BTW. Vermont didn't even put pictures on most driver's licenses until about 20 years ago. You had to drive to Montpelier if you wanted a picture license because the Montpelier office had the DMV's only camera.
At $20 a liter, we can't afford the stuff. It's all sold to tourists.
As Winston Churchill might have said (but didn't). The possibility of a voting machine with a network interface no more entered into my mind than that of a battleship being launched without a bottom.â
Y'know, 15 years or so ago, I had a part time job managing a network of a hundred or so Windows 9 PCs and a handful of WFWG PCs too incapable to even run Win95. Novell Server. It didn't crash.
Sometimes (about every third thunderstorm) we lost the internet for a few hours. Every now and then a PC died. But the network didn't crash. ... Until expert help tried to modernize it
Then it crashed.
A lot.
Maybe there is something to be said for simple and reliable.
"Sometimes patients still die even when they receive the best of care."
I've been told that there's a substantial chance some of us might die sooner or later.
"AI needs to be trained just like graduating students. ..."
Yes, but my impression is that (much of?) the "training" already exists in the form of guidelines that doctors are supposed to, and often do, follow? e.g. Age 77, Male, BP=138/80 = OK. But BP 141/80 = needs medication.
I could be wrong of course.
"I expect in 10 years, 20 max, it will be illegal in civilized places to diagnose and prescribe treatment without consulting a computer, just like it is now without consulting a medically trained person."
"Windows just crashed again. You'll have to stop that damn bleeding until IT can fix this thing ... ???
"who ever makes money from it"
More like whoever has money that can potentially be liberated for some noble cause like enriching lawyers.
Another factor is that a doctor generally has to screw up substantially to be sued successfully. I suspect the same isn't true of an AI computer program which is likely to be held to a much higher standard. That may cause AI to be relegated to an advisory role. "Alexa, I think this dude has cancer, what do you think?" "I think it's just a hangover. Tell him to take two Asprin, lay of booze for a day and call you tomorrow if he still feels rotten."
Heck, I'm willing to believe that some voting machines are secure. However, my bet would be that secure voting machines are both expensive and not very widely used.
"There are many other reasons for counting votes the "traditional" way, secure machines or not."
There are other alternatives as well. For example the town I live in uses paper ballots, but counts them with OCR -- which allows for a quick total when the polls close, but still allows a recount if a problem in a miscount is suspected.
BTW, about 30 years ago, the town had a substantial number of blank ballots vanish on election day. Everyone is pretty sure they didn't end up in the vote count, but to this day no one knows where they went. if indeed they ever existed. It's remotely possible that the print run was somehow miscounted.
"That would require the building of 25,000 vehicles a month."
Probably more like building 3000 vehicles a month and installing 22000 conversion kits.
I suspect trucking companies will replace tractors when, and only when, it costs more to keep an old tractor on the road than to replace it.
I'll start taking AI seriously if/when I encounter an automated phone answering system that functions half as well as a high-school dropout receptionist nursing a hangover.
"how long has it been and how much has CO2 increased ?"
Roughtly 30 years. and roughly.15% respectively
Pretty much complete nonsense. They are comparing two different sets of instrumentation that should conceptually show the same quantity, but don't. Then calling the difference "acceleration". That's nuts.
Neither the tidal gauges by themselves nor the satellites by themselves http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ show any significant acceleration although both are a bit noisy. Why are they different? Lots of people would like to know that. FWIW, I think the satellites are somewhat more likely to be right planetwide. But one should probably use nearby tidal gauges for local planning since they reflect local susidence, etc. Satellites are complicated beasts working at (or perhaps beyond) the limits of what is possible. There is potential for some sort of calibration error.
And both the satellites and the tidal gauges show more sea level rise than can be accounted for by known ice melt plus ocean thermal expansion plus aquifer pumping minus impoundments. But no one currently has much faith in that estimate.
Need I point out that building roads and structures right at Highest High Water (A term I just made up) really isn't a very good idea. OK for parking lots and campgrounds perhaps. But for stuff you'll miss if its destroyed, you want highest high water plus highest likely storm surge plus maybe a meter or two.
Actually, it wouldn't do any harm for planners to assume three or more feet of seal level rise in the next century. It'd work better than what they are doing now. But "science" it is not.
They allow you to call 1-666-GOSATAN where you may be able to negotiate a deal for achieving your rather modest desires in exchange for your immortal soul. You'll have to spend 45 minutes fighting with Hell's automated phone answering system but once you get through to a live demon, it shouldn't be hard..
Of course your soul may not be worth all that much. Depends on what you've been doing with your spare time.
"And Apple does not spy on you, in any way, whatsoever, right?"
Only the bare minimum required to protect their intellectual property and enhance your user experience.
See http://www.newsweek.com/apple-...
A caution. Once you get back beyond the reach of polar ice cores (about 800,000 years), CO2 estimates are based on somewhat dubious proxies. The one case I'm aware of where there are two proxies for the same sediment bed (leaf stomata size and soil calcification) the estimated values differed by a factor of two. Doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the accuracy of past CO2 estimates. But then, I don't have much faith in proxy measurements of anything.
Hansen made the prediction during a radio interview in 1988. There was some ambiguity whether it was a 20 year or 40 year prediction. When asked about that, Hansen said 40 years. Heck, let's give him that. (I reckon he needs about 2-3 meters sea level rise in the next decade for it to come about. But I don't live in NYC and don't know for sure how much freeboard the lowest stretch of 12th Avenue/Westside Highway has.
"There are people in Miami (and other Florida coastal cities), who beg to differ."
They seem to have built parts of Miami Beach below the level reached by the highest high tides. Imprudent of course, But profitable if you can sell the property before the moon and sun next align in an unfortunate configuration. Maybe they should have put a bit more thought into approving building permits.
There are a number of tidal gauges in Florida and several in the Miami area.
Here's what NOAA has to say about Miami Beach
"The mean sea level trend is 2.39 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years. "
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa....
Don't take my word for it, nor your local newspaper's and certainly not the Slashdot editor's. I'd encourage you to check both NOAA.gov and psmsl.org for yourself.